How would you bid these cards be honest
#1
Posted 2010-May-21, 13:21
♠KJx
♥xxxx
♦AQ9xx
♣A
♠Q98x
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQTxxx
#2
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:06
1♦ - 1♠
2♠ - pass
eactly 3-4-5-1 is the only shape I raise with 3 card support. I strongly believe in bidding 2♣ with 4+-4+ (or even 3-5) minors (especially if playing reverse flannery) and I strongly believe in 1NT response promising 2+cards.
Playing something else I would probably stop in 3♠ as S hand may be worth a game try opposite 12-14 and real diamonds.
#3
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:12
bluecalm, on May 21 2010, 03:06 PM, said:
1♦ - 1♠
2♠ - pass
eactly 3-4-5-1 is the only shape I raise with 3 card support. I strongly believe in bidding 2♣ with 4+-4+ (or even 3-5) minors (especially if playing reverse flannery) and I strongly believe in 1NT response promising 2+cards.
Playing something else I would probably stop in 3♠ as S hand may be worth a game try opposite 12-14 and real diamonds.
I'd probably bid one more round:
1♦-1♠
2♠-2NT(Random GT)
3♦(3451)-3♠
P
Hopefully both of us don't overbid!
-P.J. Painter.
#4
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:13
-P.J. Painter.
#5
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:24
2S-2NT
3NT
I know it is not good but my partner and I play 2NT as an invite with only 4 Spades.
#6
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:43
Apollo81, on May 21 2010, 02:21 PM, said:
♠KJx
♥xxxx
♦AQ9xx
♣A
♠Q98x
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQTxxx
Playing completely standard methods:
1D 1S
2S 3C
3D 3S
P
Playing some kind of asking bid over 2S:
1D 1S
2S 2N
3D 3S
p
3D= 3 and a max.
Playing my preferred answers to the asking bid:
1D 1S
2S 2N
3H 3S
p
3H=3 max unbalanced
#7
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:46
bluecalm, on May 21 2010, 03:06 PM, said:
1♦ - 1♠
2♠ - pass
I really don't buy this auction, the south hand is massive if partner has 4 spades, and your style of raising makes that very likely. Precision also makes it less likely that partner has bad diamond wastage.
#8
Posted 2010-May-21, 14:53
Apollo81, on May 21 2010, 02:21 PM, said:
♠KJx
♥xxxx
♦AQ9xx
♣A
♠Q98x
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQTxxx
I'd probably bid one more round:
1♦-1♠
2♠-2NT(Random GT)
3♦(3451)-3♠
P
Hopefully both of us don't overbid!
P.S.... how the heck did I show 3451?
#9
Posted 2010-May-21, 15:00
#10
Posted 2010-May-21, 15:05
Jlall, on May 21 2010, 04:00 PM, said:
Kinda a good policy/nice method.
Of course playing with the ch00-monster I have no need of such things since he ALWAYS raises on 3, basically.
It's both very stressful and, yet, at the same time, somewhat comforting to know that when my partner raises me here... he's almost a lock to have 3 cards. lol. At least he doesn't doubt my declarer play--yet...
#11
Posted 2010-May-21, 15:15
#12
Posted 2010-May-21, 15:19
1♦ 1♠
2♠ 2NT
3♥ 3NT
2♠ = systemic with unbalanced hand, 11-14
2NT = inv+, asks
3♥ = nat, max & 3 spades only
I didn't even see whether this is the right contract lol.
#13
Posted 2010-May-21, 16:22
Quote
My favorite toy tells me the game makes in 53% of cases opposite 12-13 balanced with 4♠ so it looks like you are right. It was bad evaluation from me.
#14
Posted 2010-May-21, 16:29
bluecalm, on May 21 2010, 05:22 PM, said:
Quote
My favorite toy tells me the game makes in 53% of cases opposite 12-13 balanced with 4♠ so it looks like you are right. It was bad evaluation from me.
Well I don't really know how to quantify this, but I think that this is a hand that will be very easy to make a bad lead/misdefend.
Like they might lead a club pretty often (partner opened diamonds), or maybe they'll try a trump, or in general maybe they'll misdefend because our hand is well disguised (never bidding our good 6 card suit). I suspect a diamond is almost always their best lead to tap our hand but that might be difficult to ever figure out.
Of course it's MP so 170 might do well but I think everyone might have the same troubles defending.
Basically this is the type of hand where I'd expect to have a significant edge over a double dummy simulation.
Your simulation is unfair to yourself though since I assume you open at least some balanced 11s in precision, and even though we might stop in 3 opposite that theres a chance 3 goes down which is a gain for not game trying.
#15
Posted 2010-May-21, 17:48
Apollo81, on May 21 2010, 02:21 PM, said:
♠KJx
♥xxxx
♦AQ9xx
♣A
♠Q98x
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQTxxx
1nt(14-16, offshape often)=2c(does not promise a major)
2h=3c(natural, gf)
3nt=p
well honest bidding....
#16
Posted 2010-May-21, 18:19
Jlall, on May 21 2010, 09:43 PM, said:
1D 1S
2S 3C
3D 3S
P
What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ?
#17
Posted 2010-May-21, 19:43
2♠-2N (game try 4♠ only NF)
3N
Obviously not the greatest game, but it does have some chances. I suppose if you have methods where you can make a game try, hear that opener has a maximum, and then stop in a partial... and you choose to use those methods... then you can play 3♠. But honestly this sequence seems weird to me -- give opener a slightly different hand like Kxx Axxx QJxxx A and 3NT is quite good. And most of these auctions didn't even identify the shortage; give opener AKx x QJxxxx Axx and it's hard to imagine going down in 3NT (yes, a surprise diamond lead to an honor combined with the heart ace offside would do it).
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#18
Posted 2010-May-21, 20:17
#19
Posted 2010-May-21, 23:38
gnasher, on May 21 2010, 07:19 PM, said:
Jlall, on May 21 2010, 09:43 PM, said:
1D 1S
2S 3C
3D 3S
P
What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ?
If I didn't bid 1D 1S 2S 4S (that's what I'd bid at imps dunno at MP maybe that's too cavalier?), I'd certainly bid 4S over 3D. To me 3D shows extra values. Not perfect since you never clarify whether you have 3 or 4 spades if you're min but that's why I play an asking bid usually. If I didn't bid 4S I would certainly bid at least 3H over which partner should bid 3N imo (which I'd correct to 4S) or 4S.
#20
Posted 2010-May-21, 23:45
mike777, on May 21 2010, 06:48 PM, said:
Apollo81, on May 21 2010, 02:21 PM, said:
♠KJx
♥xxxx
♦AQ9xx
♣A
♠Q98x
♥Kx
♦x
♣KQTxxx
1nt(14-16, offshape often)=2c(does not promise a major)
2h=3c(natural, gf)
3nt=p
well honest bidding....
ok....sigh........

Help
